Fixing our food Debunking 10 myths about the global food system and what drives hunger
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Fixing our food Debunking 10 myths about the global food system and what drives hunger www.oxfam.org
OXFAM BRIEFING PAPER – SEPTEMBER 2022
Our unequal global food system is unsustainable for people and planet. We urgently
need to rethink how the world feeds its people.
The food crisis we are facing is not new. Extreme inequality and poverty, rights
abuses, conflict, climate change and inflation – exacerbated by the pandemic and
the war in Ukraine – mean that hundreds of millions of people do not have enough
to eat. While millions of people are struggling to find their next meal, the world’s
main food traders have made record profits, adding billions to their collective
wealth.
This paper debunks 10 myths about our food system and provides an alternative
framing that will lead to better outcomes for the long term.
We must shift our current food system from an industrial, exploitative and extractive
model to a local and sustainable one that contributes to climate resilience and
realizes people’s right to food – one that reduces inequality and poverty.
© Oxfam International September 2022
This paper was written by Marc Cohen, Guillaume Compain, Thierry Kesteloot, Madelon
Meijer, Eric Munoz, Simon Murtagh, Hanna Saarinen and Nout van der Vaart. Oxfam
acknowledges the assistance of Pauline Chetcuti, Max Lawson and Mathew Truscott in
its production. It is part of a series of papers written to inform public debate on
development and humanitarian policy issues.
For further information on the issues raised in this paper please email
advocacy@oxfaminternational.org
This publication is copyright but the text may be used free of charge for the purposes
of advocacy, campaigning, education, and research, provided that the source is
acknowledged in full. The copyright holder requests that all such use be registered
with them for impact assessment purposes. For copying in any other circumstances, or
for re-use in other publications, or for translation or adaptation, permission must be
secured and a fee may be charged. Email policyandpractice@oxfam.org.uk.
The information in this publication is correct at the time of going to press.
Published by Oxfam GB for Oxfam International under
ISBN 978-1-78748-939-4 in September 2022.
DOI: 10.21201/2022.9394
Oxfam GB, Oxfam House, John Smith Drive, Cowley, Oxford, OX4 2JY, UK.
Cover photo: Idrissa Ouedraogo is a farmer in the North Central region of Burkina Faso.
His millet, maize and bean crops have dried up due to the lack of rainfall, and his
animals no longer have anything to graze on. A few years ago, he could sell his crops
and use the proceeds to send his children to school and provide them with medical
care. Now the money he gets is not enough. Credit: Cissé Amadou/Oxfam.
2SUMMARY
The unequal global food system is unsustainable for people and planet, and there is an urgent need to
rethink how the world feeds its people. We will not solve the long-standing global food crisis, made worse
by the war in Ukraine, with the same policy approaches that created it. The combination of extreme
inequality and poverty, human rights violations, conflict, climate change and sharp food and energy price
inflation, accelerated by the war in Ukraine and the COVID-19 pandemic, has already resulted in hundreds
of millions of people not having enough to eat. The effects of the war in Ukraine are expected to push a
further 47 million people into acute hunger. 1 In East Africa, one person is estimated to be dying of hunger
every 48 seconds in drought-ravaged Ethiopia, Kenya and Somalia, as actions have remained too limited to
prevent the hunger crisis from escalating. 2 People in rich countries are also facing increased hunger. The
rate of people in the US who do not have enough to eat rose from 7.8% in August 2021 to 11.2% in April
2022. 3
While millions of people are struggling to find their next meal, the world’s main food traders have made
record profits, and the billionaires involved in the food and agribusiness sector have seen their collective
wealth increase by $382bn (45%) over the past two years, with 62 new food billionaires created in the
sector since the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. 4
The world has the tools to anticipate and respond to this worsening hunger, yet continues to choose not
to act with the speed and seriousness the crisis demands. Current debates on food and hunger need to be
reframed to work towards a real, fundamental change to a just food system – shifting from an industrial,
exploitative and extractive model to a local and sustainable one, which contributes to climate resilience
and the realization of the right to food, while reducing inequality and poverty.
This paper highlights 10 areas where a reframing of the discourse is needed. It presents 10 myths to
debunk, explaining why the current framing is wrong – or insufficient – and provides an alternative
framing, which will lead to better outcomes and solutions for the long term. This reframing is as follows:
1. The food crisis that the world is now facing is made worse by the war in Ukraine, but it is not new. The
impact of the war is an additional layer to a long-standing failure in the global food system.
2. Not everyone is losing out in the current situation. Despite pushing millions of people into hunger, the
crisis has also created winners – the food billionaires and the powerful food companies and traders
who are able to profit from the current system.
3. High levels of hunger are not caused by a lack of food; farmers produce more than enough to feed the
whole world. Despite adequate harvests and healthy levels of food stocks, hunger has increased since
2017. 5 The problem is more of distribution and of food being unattainable or unaffordable.
4. The solution to tackling hunger is not to increase production, which is proposed by many supporters of
industrial agriculture, no matter the environmental costs. It is to ensure more equal distribution and to
address demand-side factors which increase food prices and drive farmland use for purposes other
than food production, such as unsustainable biofuel production.
5. The answer to tackling hunger does not lie in global value chains. Instead, the focus should be on
supporting local food production. As the war in Ukraine has shown, overreliance on global value chains
has created massive vulnerabilities, as a high number of low-income countries rely on just a handful of
large agricultural producer countries to feed their people.
6. Greater reliance on markets, financial actors and trade liberalization will not fix the broken global food
system. In reality, we need to better regulate markets and create fairer and more flexible trade rules for
low-income countries that allow them to build stronger local food systems.
7. Paying attention to gender and women’s rights is not a distraction from ensuring that everyone has
enough to eat. There will be no sustainable end to hunger without gender justice and strengthening
3women’s rights. There is still too little concrete action to ensure that the rights and interests of women
are prioritized.
8. Responding to the double crisis of climate change and hunger will not require high-tech fixes in the
agriculture sector. A wealth of practical approaches already exists. The adoption of agroecological
principles presents one clear pathway for building local resilience and supporting farmers.
9. Hunger is not an inevitable consequence of conflict and war. Even in conflict there is a right to food.
Solutions to break the deadly cycle between conflict and hunger exist and should be promoted, and we
need to work towards peace as an integral part of the fight against hunger.
10.There are enough financial resources to respond to the different crises across the world. Corporations
and the billionaire dynasties who control so much of the food system are seeing their profits soar.
Taxing extreme wealth and corporations' excess profits would be effective in providing funds to
governments to alleviate poverty, inequality and hunger.
RECOMMENDATIONS
It is time to build a more equal, sustainable global food system for the long term in which no one goes
hungry. Oxfam makes the following recommendations to start addressing the systemic inequalities in the
current food system:
• To tackle the immediate food price inflation and to ensure all people can access affordable food,
governments should urgently implement progressive taxation measures and use them to invest in
powerful and proven measures that reduce inequality, such as universal social protection schemes.
Social protection mechanisms and food access must be reinforced in all countries.
• Governments, donors and food companies must rebalance the power in food supply chains, and ensure
that the rights of the farmers and workers producing our food are respected. More support should be
directed to farmers and agricultural workers to expand sustainable domestic and local food production.
This would reduce dependence on international markets, which exposes countries to supply
disruptions and price fluctuations. It is essential that small-scale farmers in low-income countries are
supported in having more access to funding, infrastructure, inputs and markets, and that their land
rights are protected.
• As there is no shortage of food in the world but a problem of unequal distribution of affordable food,
increasing agricultural production is not the solution. Instead, we must address the unstainable use of
farmland, for example for biofuel production. Rich countries must revise their unsustainable biofuel
policies. Subsidies and tax exemptions which incentivize the diversion of agricultural production to fuel
production should be dismantled.
• International trade rules – often negotiated to benefit and protect farmers in rich countries – must be
reshaped, with greater space for low-income food-deficit countries to adjust their levels of food
imports and exports, and invest in domestic food production. There should be tighter regulation of food
commodity markets and their transparency must be increased, including by improving data on food
stock levels. The development of strategic food reserves should be supported, given the role that
stocks can play in buffering the impacts of food crises. New rules should also be implemented to
prevent excessive financial speculation from fuelling food price volatility. These are all essential
structural reforms in the interest of a sustainable and resilient food system.
• Finally, there will be no sustainable end to hunger without gender justice. Real and radical action must
be taken on women’s rights if we are to end hunger and the inequality that underlies it. There is still too
little concrete action to ensure that the rights and interests of women are prioritized. Public policies
must be enacted that facilitate women’s access to inputs, resources and services, and guarantee their
land rights.
4MYTH 1
THE WORLD IS FACING A NEW FOOD CRISIS CAUSED BY THE WAR IN UKRAINE.
REALITY
FOOD PRICES WERE ALREADY RISING SHARPLY LONG BEFORE THE WAR BROKE OUT. THE WAR IN UKRAINE IS AN
ADDITIONAL LAYER TO AN EXISTING SYSTEMIC CRISIS, HIGHLIGHTING OUR BROKEN FOOD SYSTEM.
While the Ukraine crisis has had a big and negative impact on world food prices and caused extreme
volatility, these prices were already rising rapidly for many months before the war. For example, between
April 2020 and December 2021, wheat prices increased by 80%. 6 Before the war started, there were already
an estimated 828 million people around the world who suffered from hunger – almost a tenth of the global
population. 7
While the negative impact of the war in Ukraine on global food security is important, what the world is
facing today is not a new crisis but an additional layer to the existing, long-standing failures in the global
food system. This is a system which is ever more fragile due to climate change, economic hardship,
economic, social and gender inequalities, ongoing internal and external conflicts around the world, and
the COVID-19 pandemic. The way the global food system is organized is hugely wasteful and inefficient. It
is extractive, poorly regulated and largely in the hands of a few private companies and very rich individuals
– making it profoundly unsustainable for people and planet.
Using all of the political and economic tools at our disposal, the aim should be to address immediate food
price inflation while also using this moment to build a more equal, sustainable global food system in which
no one goes hungry. This should be done by supporting national governments, farmers and food and
agricultural workers through long-term investment to expand sustainable domestic food production.
Around the world, people are facing steep increases in food prices for the third time in 15 years, following
the food price crises of 2007–2008 and 2011. The world cannot afford inaction or a repeat of past mistakes
in addressing hunger and malnutrition. Instead of offering elitist and mere band-aid solutions, we need to
tackle the root causes of our broken global food system. We cannot end hunger without addressing the
climate crisis, the erosion of agricultural biodiversity or the deep inequalities in society. Crucially, if we fail
to put the rights and needs of small-scale farmers and food and agricultural workers at the heart of
transforming our global food system, any responses will only fuel further inequality and hunger.
The small-scale farmers at the forefront of global food production are all too often neglected. This
includes the unpaid work of family members and women. Small-scale family farmers provide more than
70% of the food supply 8 in Asia and sub-Saharan Africa. It has been demonstrated that investment in
small-scale agriculture is the most efficient way to reduce hunger and poverty. 9 Yet despite this, there
has been long-standing underinvestment in small-scale farming. This is seen in donor budgets, where the
share of aid allocated to the food and agriculture sector has stagnated at an average of $12bn per year. 10
An additional $14bn per year, over a period of 10 years, is needed from donor governments if they are to
contribute their share to the objective of ending hunger and doubling the incomes of 545 million small-
scale farmers. 11 In Africa, only four out of the 55 African Union member states respect the Malabo
commitment to invest at least 10% of their national expenditure on agriculture. 12 In 2021, the average
spending on agriculture in Africa was just 4.1%, and it is unclear how much of this spending reached
small-scale farmers at all. 13 If small-scale farmers had more and better access to land, funding,
infrastructure and markets, and their rights were protected, they could drastically reduce poverty and
hunger.
Food and agricultural workers in global supply chains, many of whom are women, are another key group at
the forefront of food production. They are the unseen army providing the food for supermarkets in rich
5countries. They continue to face poverty-level wages, 14 poor working conditions, lack of freedom of
association and collective bargaining, gender discrimination, sexual harassment and gender-based
violence in the workplace, and precarious employment, with the COVID-19 pandemic worsening their
situation. All too often the people who work to produce food for others are themselves going hungry. In
stark contrast, the supermarket sector and agricultural traders have largely been the standout winners of
the pandemic with their high profits. 15
Governments, donors and food companies must rebalance the power in food supply chains and ensure
that the rights of the small-scale farmers and workers producing our food are respected.
Box 1: The worst food crisis in a generation. Millions face starvation.
West Africa is currently facing its worst food crisis in a decade, 16 with 27 million people going hungry. This
number could rise to 38 million – an unprecedented level – unless urgent action is taken.
In East Africa, one person is estimated to be dying of hunger 17 every 48 seconds in drought-ravaged Ethiopia,
Kenya and Somalia, as actions have remained too slow and too limited to prevent the hunger crisis from
escalating. The rainfall deficit in the most recent rainy season in these three countries has been the most
severe in at least 70 years. 18
In Yemen and Syria, protracted conflicts have shattered people’s livelihoods. In Yemen, more than 17 million
people – over half the population – do not have enough food, and pockets of the country are experiencing
famine-like conditions. In Syria, six out of 10 Syrians 19 – 12.4 million people – are struggling to put food on the
table. This means many families are resorting to extreme measures to cope, 20 including going into debt to buy
food, taking children out of school to work, and reducing the number of meals they have each day. Marrying off
young daughters so there is one less mouth to feed has become another negative coping strategy.
Across the globe, existing vulnerabilities have already resulted in 193 million people facing acute (IPC 3 21 or
higher) hunger. 22 The effects of the war in Ukraine are expected to push a further 47 million people into acute
hunger. 23
Box 2: case study – Somalia
Somalia is seeing its worst drought in nearly half a century. As a result, over 7 million people face severe
hunger, 1 million people have been displaced, and the country is at increased risk of famine, with 213,000
people already experiencing famine-like conditions. 24
There are several compounding factors to the crisis. Climate change has made droughts more intense and more
frequent, decimating crops and killing livestock. Conflicts and the presence of non-state armed groups not only
force people to move, but also impede their ability to reach cities and get humanitarian support. Camps of
internally displaced people are overcrowded and rarely benefit from water infrastructure. All of this is a hammer
blow to millions of poor people already devastated by the COVID-19 pandemic, which disrupted supply chains
and caused inflation and job losses. Despite repeated early warnings from regional governments and
international NGOs, the international community did not anticipate the situation and once again has responded
late.
The war in Ukraine, with its repercussions for global food supply chains and prices, is an additional burden on
Somalia’s economic situation and wheat stocks, making it ever more difficult for people to buy staple food. The
country is 90% dependent on wheat exports from Ukraine and Russia 25 and wheat flour stocks across the
country are at their lowest ever level. According to Oxfam’s analysis, the country’s food inflation over the last
year reached 15%, 26 and some essential food prices have more than doubled: for example, 20 litres of cooking
oil used to cost $20 but is now at $52. 27
In the coming months, with weather forecasts increasingly pessimistic, the likelihood is that a worsening
drought will lead to a famine unfolding in Somalia, with many more people losing their livestock and dying of
hunger. It means that most people will be unable to rebuild their livelihoods, resulting in a breakdown of the
economic system and a loss of hope.
6Farhiya Ahmed (35), from Eyl, explains: ‘My family lost our livestock due to the drought. We went through difficult
times and had to move to IDP camps [camps for internally displaced people]. The only asset we had was
livestock; livestock is everything for the nomadic people. Today I can't take care of my children. They need an
education, and I have no support. I have four children in this camp, and I left the other kids to stay with my
extended family.’
MYTH 2
RISING FOOD PRICES HAVE AN IMPACT ON EVERYONE AROUND THE WORLD, SO EVERYONE IS LOSING OUT.
REALITY
RISING FOOD PRICES HIT POOR PEOPLE MUCH HARDER, AS THEY SPEND MORE OF THEIR INCOME ON FOOD. AT
THE SAME TIME, RISING FOOD PRICES HAVE CREATED HUGE WINNERS: THERE ARE 62 NEW FOOD BILLIONAIRES,
AND FOOD COMPANIES HAVE REGISTERED RECORD PROFITS.
Steeply increasing costs of living have terrible impacts on people’s lives in all parts of the world. Millions
face hunger daily, not just in Africa but in countries like the United States and the United Kingdom. It is a
global trend, set in motion by the COVID-19 pandemic’s economic and supply disruptions and now
reinforced by the outbreak of the war in Ukraine.
While millions of people are struggling to find their next meal in both low-income and rich countries,
billionaires involved in the food and agribusiness sector have seen their collective wealth increase by
$382bn (45%) over the past two years, with 62 new food billionaires created in the sector since the
outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. 28
Food inflation has hit several low-income countries harder than the world average. Recent data from East
Africa shows that food inflation over the last year in Ethiopia (44%), Somalia (15%) and Kenya (12%)
exceeds the G7 (10%) and global average (9%). 29 West Africa is also facing abnormally high prices of local
and imported food items. For 11 out of 17 countries in the region, cereal prices are more than 50% above
the five-year average. 30 In 2022, food inflation has hit 25% in Burkina Faso, 20% in Nigeria and 30% in
Ghana. 31
Moreover, people in low-income countries typically spend a much higher share of their income on food,
which further exposes them to price increases. For instance, people in East Africa spend as much as 60%
of their incomes on food and rely heavily on imported staples. By comparison, in the United Kingdom
spending on food and beverages accounts for an average of 11.6% of household budgets. 32 Therefore, in
countries like Kenya or Ethiopia, sharp price increases have devastating impacts: food is available to buy,
but unaffordable for millions of people.
Inequalities regarding food inflation do not only exist between countries, but also within countries. In the
United States, around 11% of the population does not have enough to eat, and the prevalence of food
insufficiency is more than twice as high for Black and Latino adults. Moreover, in 2020, the poorest 20% of
US households spent an average of 27% of their income on food, while the richest 20% spent around 7%
(see US case study below). 33
As food commodities have reached unprecedented price highs in recent months, the world’s main food
traders have made record profits. The Cargill family, which owns the majority of one of the world’s largest
food traders, saw their fortune increase by almost $20m a day from the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. In
2021, the company made almost $5bn in net income, the biggest profit in its history. 34 Some other traders
have also captured a large share of the money – for example, Bunge saw its profits rise by 19% between
7the first quarter of 2021 and the first quarter of 2022. 35 Another big trader, Archer Daniels Midland (ADM),
saw its net income rise from $1.105 billion to $1.539 billion over the same period. 36
These systemic inequalities in the food system and the disparate impacts of price hikes must be
addressed. The single most urgent action that governments must take now is to implement highly
progressive taxation measures and use them to invest in powerful and proven programmes that reduce
inequality, such as universal social protection and universal healthcare. Social protection mechanisms
targeting the poorest people and focusing on food access (both physically or through cash) must be
implemented and/or reinforced in all countries.
In addition, debt relief must be granted for low- and middle-income countries in order to strengthen their
fiscal space and allow them to develop such programmes. Public external debt, which is often held by
private finance actors, severely constrains the ability of governments in low-income countries to ensure
the food security of their citizens. In 2022, 60% of low-income countries are on the brink of debt
distress, 37 and the cost of debt servicing for the world’s poorest countries is estimated to be at $43bn. 38
In 2021, in low-income countries, debt represented 171% of all spending on healthcare, education and
social protection combined. 39 To address the problems caused by rapid food price inflation and build a
more equal world, the debts of poorer nations should be cancelled to allow them to boost social
protection and shield their citizens from shocks.
Taxes on excess profits and extreme wealth are increasingly recognized as an appropriate tool to fund
solidarity policies, especially in times of crisis. The IMF, the OECD and the EU have proposed that
governments impose windfall taxes on the energy companies making record profits from skyrocketing
energy prices to support people facing rising energy bills. 40 Spain has proposed such a tax on the
country’s energy and finance companies in response to recent increases in their profit margins because of
interest rates, 41 and Italy has already enacted such a tax on the country’s energy companies. 42 Oxfam is
calling for an ambitious windfall tax to capture the windfall profits of corporations that are profiteering
from crisis. 43 Taxes on windfall profits can raise significant revenues to help mitigate high prices. 44
The introduction of one-off solidarity or emergency taxes on the richest people and corporations must
pave the way for a more fundamental solution. Permanent taxation of wealth that rebalances the taxation
of capital and labour can greatly reduce inequality, as well as combat the disproportionate political power
of the super-wealthy. 45
Box 3: Case study – United States
The rate of people in the US who do not have enough to eat rose from 7.8% in August 2021 to 11.9% in July 2022.
The prevalence of food insufficiency is highly unequal: the rates are 2.6 times higher for Black adults and 2.5
times higher for Latino adults than for White adults. Women experience higher rates of food insecurity than
men, and LGBTQIA+ identifying individuals experience higher rates than those who do not identify as such. 46
Increased prices for food, healthcare and shelter have led to the recent rise in food insecurity. 47 The war in
Ukraine is a major factor in recent US inflation, as it has led to a substantial rise in energy prices that have had
cascading effects throughout the economy. 48 Over 41 million people in the US – nearly one in every eight people
in the country – relied on the federal government’s main food aid programme, the Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program (SNAP, also known as Food Stamps), in February 2022. 49
In addition to recent price increases, many low-income people in the US lack ready physical access to food.
Nineteen million people (over 6% of the population) live in so-called ‘food deserts’, far from a grocery store. 50
The current US cost-of-living crisis coincides with a low-wage crisis. Fifty-two million US workers (almost one in
every three) earn less than $15 per hour. For women workers, the figure is 40%, and for women workers of
colour, it is 50%. Given the rising costs of food and other necessities, raising the US national minimum wage
from the current $7.25 per hour to $15, as long advocated by Oxfam America and others, would still fall far short
of a ‘living wage’. 51
8Low-wage employment is highly insecure, as seen in the case of Gloria Gomez, a 65-year-old immigrant from El
Salvador. Gloria lost her cleaning job in Houston because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Due to her husband’s
disability, she was her family’s only earner. Gloria says: ‘We don’t eat as well, I feel depressed, I don’t sleep
much, worrying what will happen if we can’t pay the medical insurance. I’ve worked all my life. This is
traumatizing.’ 52
MYTH 3
THERE IS NOT ENOUGH FOOD AVAILABLE TO FEED THE WORLD.
REALITY
THERE IS MORE THAN ENOUGH FOOD TO FEED THE WORLD. THE PROBLEM IS ONE OF INEQUALITY, DISTRIBUTION
AND LACK OF ACCESS TO AFFORDABLE FOOD.
Increasing global food production is not the solution to ending hunger. Farmers already produce enough to
feed the whole planet (see Figure 1). Between the expected levels of output and stocks on hand, there will
be more than enough cereals available in 2022 to meet global demand. The war in Ukraine has created
fears of food shortages, and in some countries in the Middle East and Africa there is a risk of undersupply,
as they depend heavily on wheat imports from Ukraine and Russia. 53 However, the level of world cereal
supply is actually reassuring. 54 The latest forecasts for global production for the 2022/2023 season
anticipate only a minor decrease. 55 For instance, global production of wheat is expected to decline from
777m tonnes in 2021/2022 to 771m tonnes in 2022/2023.
Despite adequate harvests and healthy levels of food stocks in recent years, hunger has increased since
2017 56 (see Figure 2). In essence, what we are witnessing today is an inequality crisis. As food availability
remains adequate on an aggregate basis, achieving sustainable food security and zero hunger is primarily
a matter of ensuring that everyone has access to affordable food, and for the majority of humanity that
means having adequate income to purchase food, and ensuring food is sold at reasonable prices.
Figure 1: World food situation (production, utilization, stocks).
Source: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). (2022). FAO Cereal Supply and Demand Brief (8 July 2022). Accessed 15 July
2022. https://www.fao.org/worldfoodsituation/csdb/en/.
9Figure 2: Number of undernourished people around the world between 2005 and 2021. Source: FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP and WHO. (2022). The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World (SOFI): Repurposing food and agricultural policies to make healthy diets more affordable. https://doi.org/10.4060/cc0639en Although many rural poor people may have the ability to grow food for themselves, most smallholder farmers are net purchasers of food, 57 so they rely on cash earnings as well as their own production to obtain food. For agricultural labourers, cash income is even more important. A survey of South African grape farm workers in 2018 found that over 90% did not have enough to eat during the previous month. Nearly a third said that they or someone in their family had missed at least one meal in that month. 58 Urban dwellers are also overwhelmingly dependent on cash income to access food. Many low-income urbanites depend on informal employment, making their income precarious and unstable. 59 Moreover, low- income urban households devote a large share of their income to buying food. For example, in Hanoi, poor households allocate 40% of their income to food; in the cities of Nepal and Cambodia it is closer to 100% for the poorest households. 60 Yet an adequate diet often remains out of their reach. 61 In metropolitan Port- au-Prince in Haiti, people in the impoverished slums of Cité Soleil and Cité l’Eternelle struggle to eat even one or two meals a day. Just a few short miles away in affluent Pétion-Ville, home to the country’s elite and the expatriate community, high-end restaurants offer plentiful and sumptuous fare. 62 Action by governments to both make food prices affordable and to supplement the incomes of people by implementing universal social protection schemes are key to ensuring millions do not continue to go hungry in a world of plenty. 10
MYTH 4
WE NEED TO INTENSIFY FOOD PRODUCTION TO MEET FOOD DEMANDS.
REALITY
THE SOLUTION IS NOT PRODUCING EVER MORE FOOD, WHICH HAS A HUGE ENVIRONMENTAL COST. INSTEAD, WE
MUST DISTRIBUTE THE FOOD WE DO PRODUCE MORE FAIRLY, AND IN PARTICULAR USE LESS FOOD TO PRODUCE
BIOFUELS.
Amidst the latest round of skyrocketing food prices, many governments are encouraging efforts to
increase production – whatever the long-term environmental costs. Instead of ramping up agricultural
production there is a need to address demand-side factors. These factors increase food prices and drive
land use for purposes other than food production, such as biofuel mandates and animal feed production.
Instead of allowing production on fallow land, which has been suggested at the EU level for example, the
focus should be on reducing pressures on land by halting the use of food and feed crops for biofuels, and
addressing food losses by reducing food waste and post-harvest losses.
The proponents of market-based efficiency thinking – who reason that the current food price hikes are
due to a shortage of agricultural supply – have a simple solution: increase supply by means of increasing
production, for example by bringing set-aside (fallow) land back into production. The EU, for example, is
reversing the course set out in its Farm to Fork Strategy, which aims to reduce the environmental and
climate impact of European agriculture. 63 But relaxing environmental protection is absurd, considering the
extreme urgency of addressing the climate crisis and the warnings emanating from the latest IPCC report 64
that time is running out: ‘climate change is a threat to human wellbeing and the health of the planet. Any
further delay in concerted global action will miss a brief and rapidly closing window to secure a liveable
future’. 65 Rolling back environmental regulation would only mean stepping further away from a sustainable
food system. Furthermore, according to an analysis of EU countries, given the current price increases, the
price-reduction effect of producing more food with expensive chemical fertilizers on marginal land is likely
to be minimal. 66
The role of other factors putting upward pressure on agricultural commodity prices is not sufficiently
considered: half of croplands globally are now used to produce biofuels, animal feed and other products,
such as textiles, rather than feeding people. 67 Many of these crops are monoculture, which destroys
biodiversity and pulls nutrients from the soil.
An average of 5,935 kilocalories (kcal) per person of crops is directly edible by humans. 68 Yet 808 kcal go to
non-food use – mainly biofuels. 1,738 kcal are used for animal feed and 1,329 kcal are lost or wasted,
while 129 kcal are invested for re-planting. Only 594 kcal out of the 1,738 kcal fed to animals are returned
to human consumption, for example as dairy or meat. Nevertheless, the remaining 2,525 kcal would be
enough to meet the average dietary energy requirement for a healthy life (estimated at around 2,000 kcal
for women and 2,600 kcal for men aged 30–39 69) if they were equally distributed around the world. These
figures also reveal that a reserve of up to 3,410 kcal per person per day (5,935 kcal minus 2,525 kcal) could
be made available if better policies regarding food use were put in place. It has been estimated that the
total amount of crops used annually for biofuels is equal to the calorie consumption of 1.9 billion people. 70
11Figure 3: A breakdown of the global production of crops directly edible by humans Source: Adapted from: M. Berners-Lee, C. Kennelly, R. Watson and C.N. Hewitt. (2018). Current global food production is sufficient to meet human nutritional needs in 2050 provided there is radical societal adaptation. Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene, 1 January; 6: 52. https://doi.org/10.1525/elementa.310 The changing diet of an increasingly urban population, and higher meat consumption, is driving up demand for animal feed. It has been estimated that livestock farming currently accounts for 77% of global farmland, 71 despite only producing 18% of the world’s calories and 37% of total protein. 72 In the UK, on average, people eat almost double the protein they actually need. 73 An 8% reduction 74 in the use of cereals for animal feed in the EU would save enough wheat to make up for the expected deficit in Ukraine as a result of the war. In addition, the obligation to blend biofuel in the transport sector is a flawed policy, which creates artificial market demand for several crops (soy, corn, palm oil, wheat, sugar, vegetable oils), and should be abolished. The search for renewable energy is in itself a laudable objective. However, biofuel production increases greenhouse gas emissions due to land expansion, 75 leads to landgrabs and human rights violations, and drives up food prices. 76 Biofuels need about 2–3% of the water and land used for agriculture globally, which could feed about 30% of the world’s malnourished people. 77 Every day, Europe turns 10,000 tonnes of wheat – the equivalent of 15m loaves of bread – into ethanol for use in cars, 78 and 10% of its cereal production 79 is used for fuel. In the US, a third of the maize crop 80 is turned into biofuels. If the US and Europe halved their grain-based ethanol production and grew crops for food instead, the additional cereal would replace all of Ukraine’s missing exports. 81 Rich countries must stop adding fuel to the fire through their biofuel policies. Subsidies and tax exemptions which incentivize the diversion of agricultural production to fuel production should be dismantled. 12
MYTH 5
WE MUST RELY ON GLOBAL VALUE CHAINS TO FEED PEOPLE (GLOBALIZATION IS THE SOLUTION).
REALITY
THE UKRAINE CRISIS SHOWS THE HUGE RISK OF FOCUSING MAINLY ON THE GLOBAL FOOD MARKET TO FEED
PEOPLE. INSTEAD, SUPPORTING LOCAL PRODUCTION IS THE SOLUTION, WHILE ALSO INCREASING THE
SUSTAINABILITY AND INCLUSIVITY OF GLOBAL VALUE CHAINS.
Numerous studies 82 have confirmed that short food supply chains present more mutually advantageous
interactions between different actors in food systems. They do so by establishing fairer, direct,
autonomous commercial relationships between producers and consumers, while also expanding the
diversity of fresh and seasonal foods. 83 Many low-income countries have, however, specialized in
agriculture production for export, to the detriment of subsistence agriculture and producing food for local
consumption. This has forced them to procure more foodstuffs on international markets, exposing them to
higher import bills and requiring them to spend a bigger share of their foreign-exchange reserves on food
purchases. Seventy percent of food-insecure people live in countries that depend on international
markets for their food. 84
A high number of low-income countries rely on just a handful of large agriculture-producing countries and
import the majority of their staple grains to feed their people. 85 This has created massive vulnerabilities,
as the war in Ukraine has shown. Almost 50 countries, many of them falling into the category of low-
income food-deficit country (LIFDC), depend on Ukraine and Russia for over 30% of their wheat import
needs. 86 The hunger hotspots of Eritrea and Somalia are almost entirely dependent on wheat imports from
Russia and Ukraine. 87 This dependence on food imports is dangerous. It makes these countries – already
low on foreign reserves – extra vulnerable to market disruptions and price increases.
Furthermore, attempts to link low-income farmers to export-oriented markets and the global supply
chains of large corporations – so-called ‘inclusive business’ – have been a major trend over the past
decade. but have too often led to exploitation of both people and planet. 88 The rationale has been to give
farmers access to higher-value markets (a compelling prospect, given that there are more than half a
billion 89 small farm households in low- and middle-income countries), while giving food businesses
access to new sources of supply. In turn, donors and governments would get better development returns
from trade and investment. However, the huge power imbalance in global value chains has resulted in
extreme inequality and ongoing, systemic human rights abuses at one end of the chain, and excessive
profits, even during the COVID-19 pandemic, at the other. 90 All too often, farmers and workers do not
benefit, but are actually going hungry. 91 In many cases, smallholder farmers are forced off their land as
governments, companies, agribusinesses or powerful local elites appropriate it, only to be hired back later
as ill-paid, often abused day labourers on large-scale plantations, with informal, precarious and
frequently seasonal contracts, negatively affecting their agency and power. 92 Women – who are the
backbone of their communities and providers of food in the home – are left in the worst positions. They
have the most precarious roles as workers in global value chains, and face the risk of sexual assault in the
fields and in their workplaces. 93 Big business and governments must set out a pathway to ensure a more
just food system – one in which farmers, workers and women can participate equally.
There must be a transition from a ‘free trade’ model of feeding the world to local food economies feeding
local communities. Strengthening local and regional markets is a different approach to the current, major
focus of many low-income countries and many donors 94 on global value chains, export competitivity and
international trade. From a social and economic viewpoint, local and regional markets play an important
role in retaining the wealth created in the territory and redistributing the value added among the different
actors involved.
13The focus on international trade and export-oriented cash crops is the outcome of long-term processes rooted in colonialism and the neoliberal policies built on it, particularly through the Structural Adjustment Programs initiated by the Word Bank and the IMF in the 1980s. These sought to liberalize agriculture, remove all subsidies and promote export crops. 95 Globally, more than 80% of smallholders operate in local and regional markets, and most food is produced, processed and traded in these so-called territorial systems. 96 The local food economy is one that, with the right support, can improve access to fresh food, ensure fairer and higher farmer remuneration, and often withstand global shocks such as pandemics, the climate crisis and risks related to global geopolitics. 97 As such, it contributes to the broad-based, inclusive growth needed to fulfil the ‘Right to Food’. Women are able to actively participate in these markets as farmers and workers, and also take a leading role through processing and selling food products. 98 The development of sound agricultural policies in support of local systems is not being pursued, often because of opposition from the World Bank and IMF, or because these policies would go against WTO rules. 99 Supportive public policies need to be put in place to strengthen local and regional markets, including securing the land rights of farmers, and these policies must be backed up by sufficient financial resources. Local supplies should be supplemented with imported foods where needed, but international trade should be seen as complementary to local production, and not as the main driver of food security. Countries must develop context-specific approaches and find a complementary balance between local and global supplies. And, as the current war in Ukraine makes clear, spare capacity and variety in foods and agricultural trading partners are essential. MYTH 6 A GREATER RELIANCE ON MARKETS, FINANCIAL ACTORS AND TRADE LIBERALIZATION WILL FIX THE BROKEN FOOD SYSTEM. REALITY WE NEED TO REGULATE MARKETS, REIN IN SPECULATION, BREAK UP MONOPOLIES AND CREATE FAIRER AND MORE FLEXIBLE TRADE RULES FOR LOW- AND MIDDLE-INCOME COUNTRIES. Trade rules, especially those put in place by the WTO, are supposed to safeguard the ability of all farmers to enjoy equal access to global markets and contribute to food security. However, agriculture interests in rich countries tend to benefit more from trade rules, while people in poor countries lose out and face a higher risk of food insecurity. 100 Trade policy tools, including greater space for governments to adjust their levels of food imports and exports, invest in domestic food production and create strategic food security reserves – along with tighter regulation of food commodity markets, and reduced market concentration – are essential structural reforms in the interests of sustainable and resilient food security. The solution to the global food crisis is not the liberalization of trade at all costs; the full liberalization of food markets only reinforces the structural flaws of the system. 101 It is essential to review trade policy tools and establish better financial regulation to reduce food price shocks, and avoid repeating the failures of the 2007–2008 and 2011 food price crises. The evidence of recent food crises shows that ‘relying on the market’ and promoting more market dependence exacerbates inequality as each new crisis hits. 102 International trade rules – often negotiated to benefit and protect farmers in rich countries – must be reshaped, with greater flexibility for low-income food-deficit countries (LIFDCs) to control their food imports and exports. Additional reforms to trade rules are needed. The World Food Programme (WFP) 14
should no longer be blocked by trade rules or high prices from accessing essential food aid for use in
humanitarian situations. 103 The decision by the WTO in June to guarantee WFP's access to food supplies
free from export restrictions, once domestic food security is not under threat, is an important milestone
and should be fully honoured. 104
Transparency mechanisms must be strengthened to improve visibility in food markets. For example, the
Agricultural Market Information System (AMIS) 105 – set up by the G20 in 2011 – must be expanded to cover
all countries, in order to create a more comprehensive analysis of food stock levels and to ensure the
needs and priorities of LIFDCs are taken into account. Important food-producing countries that do not
disclose stocks levels, or are legally prevented from doing so, must be called on to provide greater
transparency. Private stocks, some of which are held by large agro-industrial groups, must also be
included in the assessments, as agreed in the G7 Statement on Global Food Security of June 2022. 106
Regional strategic food reserves, as seen in projects like the nascent ECOWAS Regional Reserve in West
Africa and the ASEAN+3 emergency rice reserve (APTERR), 107 should be encouraged, developed and
supported, given the role that stocks can play in buffering the impacts of food crises. 108 None of these
developments should be challenged at the WTO as ’trade distorting’, as they have been in the past, but
supported as vital food security-enhancing policies. 109
The principle of flexibility within trade relationships is fundamental. Policy makers must be allowed to
modify, adjust and restore tariff, quantitative and non-tariff barriers both in advance of and in the midst of
crises, notably to support smallholders and improve national or regional food system resilience. This
should be the case within both multilateral trade agreements, such as the Economic Partnership
Agreements (EPAs) and The African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), 110 and in bilateral relationships. 111
Furthermore, provision should be made to allow for temporary dispensations to facilitate trade without
requiring any damaging longer-term policy changes. This is especially important in regard to tariff
liberalization and the dismantling of other trade policy tools. In particular, OECD country governments
should reject opportunistic efforts to use the current crisis to pursue broader long-term trade
liberalization agendas and increase their food exports beyond the immediate needs of a food insecurity
crisis.
The imbalances in the global food system are also very concerning in terms of market power. Market
concentration is so severe that just 1% of the world’s farms control 65% of the agricultural land, and four
big traders carry out 70% of global trade in agricultural commodities by value. 112 Measures to reduce
market concentration must be used in scenarios where, for example, only four companies control 70–90%
of the global grain trade, or a handful of companies in eastern Europe monopolize the global trade in
fertilizers. 113
Another major issue is the role that financial speculators have played in international food trade since the
early 2000s. As early as 2011, Oxfam documented how deregulation of agricultural commodities
derivatives, and the subsequent entry of non-agricultural actors (pension funds in particular) into the
market, reinforced the inflation that led to the major food crises of 2007–2008 and 2011. 114 There is a risk
that this situation is being repeated today. 115 Although some reforms have been undertaken since 2011,
the lack of regulation remains worrying. 116
Therefore, in terms of financial market regulation, legislation such as MiFID II and the Dodd Frank Act 117
should be revised and strengthened, and the UN Committee on Food Security‘s Recommendations on Price
Volatility and Food Security fully implemented, to tighten position limits and increase transparency on
food commodities in financial markets. 118 Commodity index funds that bundle food and fuel investments
with other agricultural commodity exchange traded funds should either be reformed or abolished.
15MYTH 7 DISCUSSING GENDER IS A DISTRACTION FROM ENSURING THAT EVERYONE HAS ENOUGH TO EAT. REALITY THERE WILL BE NO SUSTAINABLE END TO HUNGER WITHOUT GENDER JUSTICE. REAL AND RADICAL ACTION MUST BE TAKEN ON WOMEN’S RIGHTS IF WE ARE TO END HUNGER AND THE INEQUALITY THAT UNDERLIES IT. There can be no food justice without gender justice. Contrary to the view that farming is a ‘male’ activity, carried out while women take care of the family, the reality is that women play multiple roles in food security – not only as food producers, farmers and wage workers, but also as natural resource managers, food processors and traders – while also taking responsibility for household food preparation, consumption and nutrition, as well as water supplies. On average, rural women account for nearly half of the agricultural workforce in low- and middle-income countries. Despite their crucial role, they face discrimination and have limited bargaining power. Patriarchal norms create disadvantages for women farmers and wage workers, specifically in terms of land rights (small plots, difficulties attaining ownership, discriminatory inheritance rights); productive resources (no access to credit, extension services or inputs); insecure and precarious employment; low or non-existent wages (as unpaid family workers in farm production); unpaid care work; and exclusion from decision making and political representation. Within the household, because of women’s weaker bargaining position, they frequently eat least, last and least well. 119 Because agricultural gender inequalities remain strong, women are particularly at risk of hunger, especially when crisis strikes. Food-price spikes have negative repercussions for female household heads and mean additional responsibilities and labour to access and prepare nutritious food for their families. They suffer labour market discrimination, which pushes them into informal and casual employment, as well as pay inequity. 120 In times of crisis, poor households face asset losses and lower incomes. Women’s assets are usually sold first. 121 Men have more access to social capital and pathways out of crisis (their higher incomes can pay off debts and secure new farm loans), whereas women often face severe time burdens, given their household food- security roles. In a crisis, they frequently have to reduce spending on nutrition and family well-being. Indeed, households adjust to reduced food purchasing power by shifting to cheaper, less diverse diets. 122 Women often buffer the impact of crisis by adopting extreme coping strategies. They reduce their own consumption to feed others, they collect wild food and they migrate in search of ways to earn income. Sometimes they take on risky jobs, including sex work. 123 For example, Bone Kortie, a 43-year-old petty trader and mother of eight children in Liberia, lost her job during the COVID-19 pandemic. Like many other Liberian women, she is her family’s sole earner and is also responsible for caring for her children and extended family. Bone told Oxfam, ‘My children and I ate two meals a day prior to COVID but now it is either one meal a day or none.’ 124 There has been progress to ensure women’s contributions to agriculture and food security are recognized. This often comes in the form of projects and activities that are gender-sensitive. Some major institutions have factored gender into their policies and strategies, ranging from the World Bank – which in 2008 recognized the importance of smallholder farmers, and especially women, in poverty reduction 125 – to UN agencies working to empower rural women. The UN Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas, adopted in 2018, calls on states to ‘take all appropriate measures to eliminate all forms of discrimination against peasant women and other women working in rural areas and to promote their empowerment…’. 126 Many governments agree with these international commitments and the importance of supporting women. 16
Yet despite the rhetoric, there is still too little concrete action to ensure that the rights and interests of
women farmers and food and agricultural workers are prioritized and that they have the resources they
need to improve their livelihoods, tackle food insecurity and build their communities’ resilience to climate
change. Women’s economic empowerment in agriculture must be made a priority, by supporting
agricultural transformation that creates an enabling environment for women to exercise their rights. There
is a need to significantly increase the quantity and quality of aid and support to focus on women
smallholders. Fundamentally, policies must be enacted that facilitate women’s access to inputs,
resources and services, including land rights.
Such policies would benefit men and boys as well as women and girls. If women farmers in low- and
middle-income countries had the same access to resources as men farmers, it is estimated that this
would boost production on women’s farms by as much as 30%, leading to an overall increase in farm
output of up to 4%. In turn, this would reduce the number of food-insecure people worldwide by 100–150
million. 127
Even if governments increase agricultural investments and target smallholders, this will not automatically
benefit women. Poorly designed interventions can increase women’s workload and their marginalization in
decision making: if a project’s design fails to account for individual rights over household assets and does
not seek to change intra-household distribution of benefits, it is likely to reinforce patriarchal social
norms. Women’s rights organizations and movements help advance gender equality and justice, but these
organizations receive little aid or support. Food security programmes usually fail to collect sex-
disaggregated data, making it impossible to track whether these initiatives support women farmers. 128
Governments should work effectively to address the social, cultural, economic and institutional barriers
that prevent women farmers from accessing critical farming inputs. Women are largely excluded in
governmental planning, budgeting, data collection and monitoring processes at all levels. 129 The
governments of low- and middle-income countries, with support from donors, should take steps to
guarantee the meaningful participation of local communities, farmers’ and workers‘ associations, rural
women’s organizations and other civil society groups in budget decisions and in the design of policies and
interventions. A prerequisite for better decisions is to collect sex-disaggregated agricultural data.
MYTH 8
RESPONDING TO THE DOUBLE CRISIS OF CLIMATE CHANGE AND HUNGER WILL REQUIRE HIGH-TECH FIXES IN THE
AGRICULTURE SECTOR.
REALITY
SOLUTIONS ALREADY EXIST. WITH THE RIGHT POLITICAL CHOICES, THEY CAN BE MADE MORE AFFORDABLE AND
ACCESSIBLE TO FARMERS, GIVING THEM CONSIDERABLE HELP TO MITIGATE AND ADAPT TO CLIMATE CHANGE
WHILE PROVIDING FOR FOOD SECURITY.
Advances in agricultural research and development (R&D) in a race to create new seeds and technological
approaches to improving agriculture productivity are touted as a key way to address food insecurity and
respond to the climate crisis. This focus too often ignores small-scale farmers’ technology needs, despite
the fact that these farmers represent a huge opportunity to increase agricultural productivity and combat
hunger. About 21–37% of total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are attributable to the food system. They
come from agriculture and land use, storage, transport, packaging, processing, retail and consumption. 130
While breaking free from unsustainable agricultural models and adapting to the changing climate will
require R&D and innovation, a wealth of practical approaches already exist. They should be acknowledged
and better supported. Agroecology provides a range of social, economic and environmental benefits and
should be underpinned by the right policies and associated financial investments. Agroecology is not a
17new invention, but a system that family farms globally have been practising for a long time. Grassroots social movements have been advocating for agroecology and sustainable agriculture for decades. 131 The climate crisis is already putting stress on agriculture systems around the world, reducing yields and productivity. 132 Africa as a continent is responsible for less than 4% of all GHG emissions. 133 It is often those countries and populations least responsible for historical GHG emissions who are experiencing the impacts of climate change most acutely, with extreme weather events and failed harvests leading to the loss of livelihoods. The majority of people in low-income countries depend on agriculture and natural resources to survive – activities which are particularly vulnerable to climate change. 134 Meeting immediate food needs must be a short-term priority for governments and international and non- governmental organizations. Supporting farmers to recover, rebuild and respond to climate change will require a long-term approach and concerted support over many years. Without efforts to help farmers to adapt to climate change, total crop production could decline by 10% by 2050, all while the global population – and the demand for food – increases. 135 To respond, farmers may, in the short term, increase their growing area or plant more intensively, using ever greater amounts of fertilizer and pesticides to treat for new onslaughts of diseases and pests. But these strategies have their limits. Land is already under severe pressure. And the over-application of fertilizer is wreaking environmental destruction. It has been estimated that nearly 80% of the nitrogen used in synthetic fertilizer is lost into the environment, 136 polluting water, air and soils, and harming biodiversity, and that only 46% of fertilizer reaches a harvested crop. 137 In addition, the use of nitrogen fertilizers for food production could threaten efforts to keep global warming below 2°C. 138 Heavy reliance on fertilizers also locks farmers into current production systems and holds back diversification. 139 Agricultural diversification is crucial to improving resilience to the effects of climate change. However, over the past 100 years, over 75% of global genetic diversity of agricultural crops has been lost, due to a focus on the production of a small set of food crops. Indigenous and local plant varieties have been neglected, leading to genetic erosion in crops and a rapidly declining gene pool. 140 Breaking free from current highly intensive, costly and unstainable agriculture models will require innovation. 141 But how that research happens, what it focuses on and importantly, who sets the agenda, matter. While many research institutions and agricultural input companies are focused on developing new seed varieties fine-tuned to maintain yield despite higher temperatures and drier growing conditions, these often do not suit the needs or priorities of farmers in low-income countries or may simply not be affordable to cash-strapped rural populations. The FAO estimates that three-quarters of the $33.6bn in agriculture R&D is spent by just a small handful of G20 countries. 142 Low- and middle-income countries are able to deploy far less R&D funding despite the prominent role agriculture plays as a source of employment in, and as the backbone of, their economies, and despite their potential to produce food while preserving precious and unique ecosystems and habitats. Global research, including the CGIAR, focuses disproportionally on improving varieties in formal seed systems, whereas 80% of smallholder farmers in lower- and middle-income countries rely on informal seed systems. 143 Smallholder farmers and their ‘farmer seed systems’ are neglected, unacknowledged and badly underfunded. This is despite their in-depth knowledge and expertise on improving, selecting and multiplying native and indigenous plant species that are key to climate resilience. The adoption of agroecological principles presents one clear pathway for building resilience and helping farmers adapt to climate change. 144 Agroecology can support food production and food and nutrition security while restoring the ecosystems and biodiversity that are essential for sustainable agriculture. It can also play an important role in building community resilience and adapting to climate change. 145 On- farm diversification, habitat management to promote biodiversity, a focus on soil health, and nutrient recycling are all agroecological practices that farmers can adopt in order to build more resilient farming 18
You can also read
